HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS:
7:00 P.M. April 16, 2015
Declaration of Quorum
February 19, 2015
A. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) (MF# Z 2015-
001)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a mini -storage facility in a
C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP
2015-003)
B. Special Permit
C. Preliminary Plat
D. Zoning Determination
E. Zoning Determination
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Special Permit to locate a modular office adiacent to
Fire Station 81 (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-004)
Preliminary Plat for Maiestia Estates (Peter Strizhak)
(MF# PP 2015-001)
Zoning Determination for Road 80 Area (City of
Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-001(
Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation Area
(City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-002)
Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF#
CA 2015-001)
Shoreline Management Act - Draft Shoreline Master
Program
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.l
VACANT
No. 2
Tony Bachart
No.3
VACANT
No. 4
Alecia Greenaway
No. 5
Joe Cruz
No. 6
Loren Polk
No. 7
Zahra Khan
No. 8
Jana Kempf
No. 9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
February 19, 2015
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this
evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman
Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated January 15, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit for Pasco Police Station (City of
Pasco) (MF# SP 2014-0111
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the special permit application for the
construction of a Police Station. He stated that no comments have been received since the
previous meeting.
-1-
Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the Planning Commissioners were given a
revised site plan prior to the meeting containing minor revisions to the roundabout by the
front door. Also, the entry into the secured parking area has been relocated. There were
no further changes.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to allow the construction of a City of Pasco Police Community
Services Building at 525 N 3rd Avenue with conditions as contained in the February 19,
2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional
Commercial) (West Pasco LLQ (MF# Z 2014-0101
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR
(Regional Commercial). He stated that there is no concomitant agreement proposed and
that there were no changes since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the rezone of the Dietrich (West Pasco LLC) property in the 9500 block of Sandifur
Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low
Density Residential) (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# Z
2014-011)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business)
to R-1 (Low Density Residential). He stated that there have been no changes since the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification between the consistency of what the
Comprehensive Plan has designated for this site and what it was already zoned for - that it
was zoned Commercial but the applicant wishes to make it Residential. She asked if City
Code allows for mixed-use or mixed -zoning options.
Mr. McDonald answered that the City does have a provision within the Comprehensive
Plan that includes a Mixed -Residential Commercial designation and if properties are
IPA
designated under that category then they can either develop for commercial or residential
uses. This property was designated for Mixed -Residential, allowing for RS -20 through R-3
Zoning and the developer requested R- zoning, which is within the parameters.
Commissioner Polk asked if there were zoning allowances to allow for buildings to contain
both residential and commercial.
Mr. McDonald responded that within the C-1 Zone residential units are permitted on
upper floors as long as the first floor contains a permitted use, such as a restaurant, office
or store but it does require a special permit. The property would have to be zoned
commercially and then the applicant would need to request a special permit for the other
floors to be residential.
Commissioner Khan asked if the developer had any interest in commercial zoning or if
that was why they wanted to rezone residential.
Mr. McDonald stated that the applicant is leaving seven lots for commercial development
and they are working on a project that may come forward in the future but, the main
interest for the property is residential as they have developed several surrounding
subdivisions.
There were no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff
report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council approve the rezone of the Broadmoor Terrace site on the south side of
Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to R-1. The motion passed 5 to 2, with Commissioner Khan
and Commissioner Polk dissenting.
Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk both explained that they dissented because
they wished to keep more of the property zoned commercial rather than more residential.
Although the motion was made, Commissioner Khan clarified for the record that her
dissenting vote was because she would like the City to retain as much commercial
property as possible in Pasco because she feels it would benefit the community more than
residential property.
Commissioner Polk agreed with Commissioner Khan that she would like to see more
commercial.
Commissioner Portugal reminded the Planning Commission that discussion is closed as
the motion was already made.
Mr. McDonald added the Planning Commission recently recommended the City Council
rezone 145 acres of land for commercial development near Road 100. That rezone
-3-
increased the inventory of commercial land in the City. The Commission was also
reminded that in order to attract commercial development, there must be a large enough
population base to support additional commercial activity.
D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat - Broadmoor Terrace (Big Creek
Land Co.) (MF# PP 2014-0061
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Broadmoor
Terrace. He stated that this application goes along with the previous rezone that was just
recommended to City Council. Staff had no additional comments.
Commissioner Khan shared concern that she had from the rezone of this property, stating
that she is concerned about the impact on the School District and the need for schools,
the lack of income that comes from residential properties that could come from
commercial properties. Although there are school impact fees and there is commercial
property near Road 100, she still believes this area should be zoned commercially.
Commissioner Polk agreed but now that the motion has already been made to rezone the
property commercial, it only makes sense to move forward with the preliminary plat and
see the land used most efficiently. She also discussed in the future seeing more mixed-
use zoning.
Commissioner Portugal stated it is important to find balance between commercial and
residential.
Chairman Cruz discussed how commercial development happens as the population grows,
which is why there is still a need for residential growth. Residential will have to
sometimes proceed the commercial. Having elevated residential (residential on upper
floors of commercial buildings) units, such as Portland and other communities is great,
but it isn't practical in a non -urban environment such as Pasco. Land is still vacant and
relatively inexpensive so developers don't need to develop up but out.
Commissioner Greenaway appreciates that the developer chose to plat larger lots and left
seven lots for commercial, which is much better than apartments, which is what they
could have developed.
Chairman Cruz added that it also created a nice transition and buffer.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat for Broadmoor Terrace with conditions as listed in the
February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan
dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to Locate Mini -Storage Facility in C-
1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP
2015-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a mini -storage facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The proposed site is located on the
northwest corner of Road 44 and Argent Road, just north of the I-182 freeway and just
south of the FCID Irrigation Canal. This has always been an odd piece of property and
slightly difficult to develop, particularly for residential. For many years it has been
indicated on the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial development, taking advantage of
the two major streets and has been zoned C-1 for three decades. The C-1 zoning
designation would allow for a variety of commercial uses, such as restaurants, offices, a
variety of stores, convenient stores and gas stations, all of which wouldn't have to go
through the special permit process. Mini -storages, however, require extraordinary review
through the special permit process.
Mr. McDonald explained that if an office complex equal in size to the proposed mini -
storage buildings was located at this site it could generate 560 vehicle trips per day. A
commercial retail development of equal size would generate over 2,000 vehicle trips per
day. A convenient store could generate 2,220 vehicle trips per day. With those trips
comes noise, traffic and commotion. The proposed mini -storage on the other hand,
according to the Institute of Traffic and Engineers, would only generate about 13 vehicle
trips per day.
Staff provided findings of fact, approval conditions and a recommendation for City
Council. Due to time constraints staff is recommending the hearing and the Council
recommendation be expedited on this application.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the process.
Chairman Cruz responded that they would hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to Council in one night.
Mr. McDonald stated that he needed to point out that there will be a full-time
office/ caretaker's facility for security. The mini -storage facility has also been setback from
the corner to leave the more visible portion of the property open for permitted uses.
Chairman Cruz replied that it could be left open for a convenient store or like activity.
Commissioner Khan asked what would be placed between the canal and border of this
site.
Mr. McDonald answered that there is a canal road and the canal. The homes are elevated
about 30 feet above the site itself so they will see over the proposed property and there is a
masonry block wall which blocks a good portion of the view so as far as aesthetics from
the homes above, they won't see the units at all.
-5-
Commissioner Bachart asked if the applicant will have to finish the sidewalk down to the
corner of the property.
Mr. McDonald explained that the applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and
sidewalk along the distance of their development and the Engineering Department may
work with the applicant on a deferral for the southern portion. The rest down to the
intersection will finish it out when the corner is developed.
Commissioner Bachart stated that there is a gap by the canal.
Mr. McDonald explained eventually the City will have to get with the Irrigation District to
widen the bridge. The long term goal of the Irrigation District is to pipe the whole
irrigation ditch but will likely be quite a ways down the road.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the number of cars estimated to visit the
storage facility per day.
Mr. McDonald answered that it was a day average according to the ITE Transportation
Manual.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he was concerned since there is a hump in the road to
the north.
Mr. McDonald responded that it was also a concern of the City as well. The applicant's
first plan included and office and entrance at the north end of the property. Staff asked to
have it moved to the south to get it away from the hump in the road to a flatter section.
Commissioner Khan asked if the entrance would be located close to the office building.
Mr. McDonald replied that it would.
Commissioner Khan said that there is a bit of a blind spot by this property and asked if
there were any plans for a traffic light to prevent traffic that is traveling very fast.
Mr. McDonald stated yes, the Engineering Department is looking at both Road 44 and
Road 36 for signalization but was unsure when it will take place.
Chairman Cruz added that part of the recommendation pushes the entry farther away
from the intersection so concerns should be mitigated.
Commissioner Bachart asked about an on/off ramp from the freeway and when or if that
will happen.
Mr. McDonald answered that the Engineering Department has been working on it. One of
the thoughts was to bring a ramp off at Road 44. This was supposed to be included in a
study by the Federal Highway Department which also included an off ramp on Road 52. It
is now understood that the two ramps have been separated and the study will move
so
forward on the Road 52 ramp. The Road 44 ramp has been put to the side for now. Mr.
McDonald explained these studies take several years and once they are completed there
are a number of years of design work and then more time to get funding.
Calin Tebay, 7320 Sandy Ridge Road, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that
the reason for needing to expedite this application is because there is a tax free deferral
and he has to have the facility built within nine months. He discussed the details of the
structure and office. His goal is to have a nice, upscale storage facility that is safe. The
site plan reflects possible future buildings but at this time that area will not be developed.
Mr. Tebay stated that he has also worked with the Engineering Department on this
project.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. McDonald pointed out many storage facilities leave gravel throughout their property
which creates dust but in this case, and the applicant has agreed, to pave all of the aisle
ways between the units and the entryway to be hard surfaced. This is similar to the other
recent facilities.
Chairman Cruz used the storage facility on Road 100 as a reference.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant
a special permit for the location of a mini -storage facility on tax parcel # 117-250-030 with
conditions as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) (MF# Z 2015-
0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential). The site is located at the intersection of Crescent Road and
Chapel Hill Boulevard and is roughly 4 acres in size. The proposed R-3 zoning would
permit up to 57 dwelling units; however, building setback requirements, landscaping,
parking and other improvements will limit the number of dwelling units that will be built.
There is no site plan at this time but there is a need for a landscape buffer. Mr. O Neill
discussed the need for a landscaped along the southwest boundary line. Twenty-five feet
was recommended. Because required improvements (involving significant fill) to Crescent
Drive it would be very expensive and difficult to develop the site for a few single family
homes. The plan is for Crescent Road to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard serving as a
useful bypass alleviating traffic from the neighborhoods to the south. General information
in the written staff report was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission.
-7-
Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission about previous discussions on this
property and why the additional buffer and grading is necessary.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the proposed 25 foot landscaping buffer
and the road improvements will only have to be done to the end of their property.
Mr. O Neill responded that staff is recommending the 25 foot landscaping buffer. And this
property borders Crescent Road and Chapel Hill Boulevard and the property frontages will
require right-of-way improvements.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, clarified that where Chapel Hill Boulevard ends at Crescent
Road is essentially where the public road right-of-way stops. The property owner will need
to complete Crescent Road and connect it to Chapel Hill Boulevard but to do that there is
possibly up to 20 feet of fill that will need to be placed in front of the site to make the
grade match properly.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission of the previous discussion on this
property. The goal is to preserve the residential zoning to the southwest as much as
possible but ultimately the C-1 zoning to the north (east) will take precedence when the
neighboring farm is sold.
Commissioner Bachart responded that part of his concern is that he wants to protect the
property owners to the southwest but at the same time, the C-1 zoning could allow for a
store, such as Costco, directly across the street without a special permit, and so he stated
that the 25 foot buffer is a little much in his opinion. He suggested 10-15 feet and
perhaps some trees.
Chairman Cruz added that when the applicant explains the grading the 25 foot buffer will
seem to make more sense.
Harvey Prickett of Wave Architects, 99304 E. Clover Road, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf
of this application. The intent is townhome style buildings. The low point of the property
will have a park and will double as the storm water retention pond. They would also like to
propose a fence, as long as it doesn't conflict with easements on the property line, with the
material as either concrete or CMU Piers at 8-12' intervals and an attractive composite
fencing in between. They wish to hydro seed the rest of the area for a greenspace and
plant large growth trees, such as Red Oak, at 30' intervals along the property. He stated
that he was in agreement with Staffs recommendation for the 25 foot landscaping buffer.
Chairman Cruz responded that the plans are more specific than the Planning Commission
typically sees during a rezone application.
Mr. Prickett answered that he wanted to have it all planned out in case there was
discussion from the audience, as in the previous meeting.
Chairman Cruz asked if a block wall is required or if other types of fencing would be
permitted.
Mr. McDonald replied that this isn't a subdivision so the block wall provisions don't apply.
In
Mr. Prickett referred fence will be attractive. As far as the greenspace with sod or hydro
seeding and oak trees every 30 feet would be fine. It is good to put in the concomitant
agreement so there is no dispute between the applicant and staff on what is expected.
Chairman Cruz responded that he felt confident in staff and the applicant working out the
details for the concomitant agreement and Planning Commission would look at it prior to
making a recommendation to City Council.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing
on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 19, 2015 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Plan Shoreline Master Program - Draft Shoreline Master
Plan
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner discussed the Shoreline Master Program. For the past year
staff has worked with the consultant, Ben Floyd of Anchor QEA, and so far they have put
together a public participation plan, draft developmental goals and policies and the
environmental designations. Much of what goes into the plan is mandated by the State.
Ben Floyd was introduced.
Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, spoke on behalf of this item. He introduced Angela San Filippo,
Washington State Department of Ecology, as she will be reviewing the program that is
developed.
Chairman Cruz suggested going over the areas in the plan that aren't mandated by the
State.
Mr. Floyd briefly discussed the relationship between the Growth Management Act and
Shoreline Management Act, the profile and inventory analysis, goals and policies,
regulations, shoreline modifications and environmental designations. He emphasized the
Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix and Shoreline Development Standards Matrix
tables in the plan. He also pointed out critical areas for the Planning Commission to
discuss. There are some tables included in the draft plan relating to wetland protection
that need to be updated. There was a draft guidance document that was issued by the
State last summer for protecting wetlands in Eastern Washington and the numbers have
slightly changed by their scoring and ranking of how functions are designated.
Chairman Cruz asked if he was referring the mitigation ratios.
Mr. Floyd clarified that the mitigation ratios were fine but the Wetland Buffer Width
Requirements table has changed. After critical areas in the plan it moves on to existing
structures and lots - how to deal with existing development that was legally permitted and
-9-
how do they move forward.
There was a brief discussion on the goals and policies of the program and the City of
Pasco's Shoreline Linkages Plan was included in the Shoreline Master Program.
Mr. Floyd highlighted economic development, supporting the industrial sites as well as the
boating and recreation opportunities. Public access is an important part of this plan.
There was some discussion regarding building height limits and the various methods that
could be used for various zones.
The Shoreline Master Program will be on the agenda again in March for further
discussion.
COMMENTS:
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, passed out photos of a
recently constructed building, built by GESA. It is a records storage facility that was
constructed on Sylvester Street and was permitted by the City and followed the current
codes. The building itself is a plain white pole building that does not look aesthetically
pleasing, however, under current codes it is permitted. He asked the Planning
Commission if they would like to see staff bring to them a code amendment to prevent this
from happening in the future. The Planning Commission was in agreement to have a
proposed code amendment brought to them.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-10-
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-001 APPLICANT: Harvey Prickett
HEARING DATE: 2/19/2015 P.O. Box 3431
ACTION DATE: 3/19/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium -Density
Residential)
1.
Lots 1 and 2, Short Plat 2001-29
General Location: 4600 Block of Crescent Road
Property Size: The site is approximately 4 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has unimproved access from Chapel Hill Boulevard and
Crescent Road.
3. UTILITIES: A municipal sewer line is located in Crescent Drive adjacent to
the site. A municipal water line will need to be extended along property
frontage(s) to serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban)
and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:
R-4
- Multi -Family Residences
SOUTH:
C-1
-Agriculture
EAST:
C-1
- Agriculture
WEST:
RS -12
- Single -Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU -3-B encourages infill and (higher) density
to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable
neighborhoods. Goal LU -3-E encourages the city to designate area for higher
density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities
enable efficient use of capital resources.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
Harvey Prickett has applied to change the zoning classification of two parcels from
RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) to allow for multi -family
residential development. The subject site is comprised of two parcels totaling
approximately 4 acres in area located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Chapel Hill Boulevard and Crescent Road.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses
which allows for a variety of residential zones/densities ranging from RS -20
(Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential
designation, R-3 zoning permits the highest residential density at a rate of one
dwelling unit for every 3,OOOft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. For
comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of 6 -units
per acre. Currently the site totals 171,887 ft2 in area; barring any required right-
of-way dedications R-3 zoning will allow up to 57 dwelling units. Building setback
requirements, landscaping and parking will moderate the total number of units
that can be accommodated on the site.
The 4 -acre site is undeveloped vacant land. Adjacent roadways are entirely
unimproved. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utility line extensions and landscaping
along all right-of-way frontages will be required during the building permit
process.
The expense associated with the referenced improvements including elevating
Crescent Drive to properly connect with Chapel Hill Boulevard would be cost
prohibitive for single-family development. Crescent Drive will need to be elevated
12 or more feet above its current elevation to achieve the proper grade for
connection to Chapel Hill Boulevard. One of the benefits of connecting Crescent
Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard is that traffic to and from the site will not need to
travel past the homes to the south on a regular basis. Chapel Hill Boulevard is
identified in the Major Street Plan as minor arterial that is planned to connect with
Crescent Drive. This connection will complete the general circulation system for
the area west of Road 100. The travel distance from existing homes to the south of
the site on Crescent Drive to the intersection with Road 100 and Chapel Hill
Boulevard will be shortened by 1.34 miles. This street connection has been
planned for many years.
It is common urban planning practice to assign higher -density residential zones to
transitional areas where they serve as buffers between higher and lesser intense
land uses. The site is located west of the high-density Broadmoor (residential)
Apartments and east of a suburban single-family residential neighborhood. Land
to the south is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) but remains vacant and is used for
farming. The site is separated from Highway 1-182 only by a narrow parcel of
vacant land. The proposed R-3 zone will effectively be a step down in residential
density from the Broadmoor Apartments transitioning to the single family
neighborhood to the southwest, thereby achieving a graduated scale of residential
densities.
2
neighborhood to the southwest, thereby achieving a graduated scale of residential
densities.
The vicinity generally functions as a gateway into Pasco. Bolstering site
development in gateway areas has an enhanced visual effect on the economic state
of a community. Eliminating vacant land in gateway areas is in the best interest of
Pasco's economic development.
Concern is often expressed about impacts to lower density property values when
nearby properties are being considered for higher density zoning. Past searches of
the Franklin County Auditor's records in areas of the community where multi-
family development is located adjacent to lower density development have
indicated there is no diminution in the value of the surrounding single-family
homes. Studies by the Urban Land Institute (Higher -Density Development Myth
and Fact, 2005, Urban Land Institute) confirm this fact. Even so, neighbors are
often concerned about the impact of higher density development upon the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. To address those concerns a
concomitant agreement requiring a 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer along the
southwesterly boundary line of the site has been developed.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established 14 years ago when the property
was annexed into the city in 2001.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
In 2014 the Planning Commission reviewed and City Council approved an
application to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site to
Mixed Residential in preparation for this rezone application. The Mixed -Residential
land use designation allows assignment of a variety of residential zones/densities
ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Muted
Residential designation, the R-3 zone permits the highest residential density at a
rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,OOOfV of land area or 14.5 units per acre.
In 2002 the adjacent site to the northeast currently containing the Broadmoor
Apartments was assigned R-4 (High -Density Residential) zoning. In 2004 the site to
the northeast was developed with a high-density residential apartment complex
containing 250 dwelling units on 15 acres of land.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
3
Changing the zoning classification of the site will foster development of a largely
underdeveloped parcel of land very near the city's main highway. There is merit in
the elimination of an underdeveloped site visible from the city's major highway as it
may foster further development in the neighborhood.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification resulting in a multi family residential development
will enhance the residential character of the vicinity by providing an increased
number of housing opportunities. The rezone from RS -12 to R-3 will encourage "infill
and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical
areas," as per Land Use Policy LU -3-B, and allow for "higher -density residential
development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of
capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3-E. This rezone would still
align with the intent of said goal and also "allow for a full range of residential
environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums,
apartments, and manufactured housing, " consistent with Housing Policy H -2-A.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without increasing the allowable residential density site development may not occur.
The applicant may not wish to proceed with any site development if it cannot be
multi family residential.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual
testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban).
2. The 4 -acre site is vacant.
3. The site is located on in the 4600 block of Crescent Road.
4. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site to allow for multi -family residential development.
5. The property to the north of the site is zoned R-4 High Density Residential
and contains an apartment complex.
6. The R-4 property to the north also contains a vacant 5 acre parcel set aside
for future expansion of the Broadmoor Apartment complex
11
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses which
allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3 (Medium -
Density Residential).
8. The property to the east of the site is zoned C-1 Retail Business.
9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties directly to the north and
east of the site for mixed residential and commercial land uses.
10. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling unit
for every 3,000 square feet of land area.
11. Roadways adjacent to the site are completely undeveloped; consisting only
of bare dirt pathways.
12. Crescent Drive must be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation
to properly connect with the end of Chapel Hill Boulevard when the property
in question is developed.
13. A municipal sewer line currently extends the length of the site in Crescent
Road.
14. Municipal water lines currently terminate at both the north and south ends
of the site and will need to be extended for service.
15. Due to the odd shape of the property and the fact Crescent Road will need
extensive fill development of the property with single-family dwellings may
be cost prohibitive.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several
Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3-B encourages "infill" development
while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments.
Housing Policy (H -B -A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of
accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses.
The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed R-3 zoning will permit site development of a lesser density than the
apartments to the northeast. Based on past experience with rezoning and
development of vacant land adjacent to existing single-family and multi family
developments, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the
proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the value of properties within
immediate vicinity.
5
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Establishment of medium -density residential zoning and the eventual development
on the subject site will further establish the multi family character matching much of
the vicinity which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Multi family residential
developments in the area routinely experience high rates of occupancy. From this we
can infer that there is a need in the community for affordable multi family housing
opportunities.
There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in
those areas currently served by municipal utilities and public transportation and will
enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
To address any perceived concerns over compatibility issues between the proposed
R-3 rezone and the single-family development to the south a concomitant agreement
should be required to impose a condition related to a landscaped buffer along the
southern boundary of the site.
4. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is needed to ensure a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer is
included between the proposed rezone site and the development to the south. (For
reference the required buffer between commercial development and residentially
zoned properties is 10 feet.)
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the March 19, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve
the rezone of the Walker property in the 4600 Block of Crescent
Road from RS -12 to R-3.
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws of
the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington
State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health,
safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within
its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property
described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act,
should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with
the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in
the City of Pasco, described as follows:
LOTS 1 & 2, SHORT PLAT 2001-29
(Parcel # 118170276)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to ensure compliance with the Pasco
Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of
the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires
to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to
the terns and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as
follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event
the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
Page 1 of 2
"Exhibit # 2"
4. Conditions:
a) Site development shall contain a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer along the full
length of the southwesterly parcel boundary.
b) Said landscape buffer shall contain red oak trees, or an approved equivalent,
spaced no less than thirty (30) feet apart.
c) The groundcover in said landscape buffer shall consist of 100% lawn.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole
holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this day of , 2015, before me, the
undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are
authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of
, 2015.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
Page 2 of 2
UA -10 H®o1�GVOHI
c
� oa
c
rA4
t ` \
a,r
a v
lt
GAI8 xooWavoaNil r a�ox
av=-4
L
Fil ~
Yt
ya f,i �.y j4
—
is
Y J'%rY it ' " �•� ,
r
i..
X _
f
�
LJ
due
r
t
.
r
Yt
ya f,i �.y j4
—
is
Y J'%rY it ' " �•� ,
r
i..
X _
f
�
due
r
.
r
L �
k
l
l
ev �
d,
Yt
ya f,i �.y j4
—
is
Y J'%rY it ' " �•� ,
r
t ;
X _
f
�
F11u���u.w
.
r
Yt
ya f,i �.y j4
—
is
Y J'%rY it ' " �•� ,
r
X _
'
Y
f
.
r
RS
"JAW"-,
_ �d Til
_ ... fa-
RS
"JAW"-,
,T
tg,
jZ
ct
"JAW"-,
,T
tg,
jZ
,..
f
\
,..
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-003
HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015
ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015
APPLICANT: Calin Tebay
7320 Sandy Ridge Rd
Pasco, WA 99301
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Mini -Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone
1.
Legal: Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the east 269.53 feet of lot 1,
Binding Site Plan 2007-07
General Location: The 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard just north of the
Crossings at Chapel Hill Apartments
Property Size: Approximately 3.7 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer lines are located in Chapel Hill Boulevard to the
south. Most of the proposed storage buildings will not require connection to
municipal sewer and water.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1* (Retail Business). The
zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: C-1/RT I=182 and the TRAC Facility/GESA Stadium
EAST: R-3 Apartments
SOUTH: R -4/R-1 Apartments and SFDUs
WEST: C-1 Vacant
*(The site is located in the I-182 Overlay zone.)
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address self -storage
facilities, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly
development including the development of zoning standards for off-street
parking and other development. Policy LU -1-B encourages enhancement of the
physical appearance of development within the City. The Comprehensive Plan
(LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at major intersection to
avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU -2-D requires all development to be landscaped. ED -3-E suggests the
use of landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as
residential) from utilitarian areas of commercial and industrial facilities.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for
this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive
Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold
determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been
issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The proposed site is a parcel and part of another parcel located at the 6600 block of
Chapel Hill Boulevard, just north of the Chapel Hill Apartments, and south of I-182.
The site is part of the Chapel Hill Development which is a mixed use subdivision
platted in 2005. The site was zoned C-1 prior to platting in 2003. The site is located
over 1,300 feet from Road 68. Following the approval of the original plat for the Chapel
Hill Development the developer further divided the site through the Binding Site Plan
process. The Binding Site Plan process was repeated in 2013 creating additional
commercial lots. The proposed mini -storage facility will be located on all or a portion of
two lots as mentioned above. The Binding Site Plans encumbered the site with a
number of easements and setback buffers corresponding more or less to the
commercial landscaping buffer requirements of the zoning regulations.
Mini -storage facilities are a conditional use that may be permitted only by the granting
of a Special Permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are made based upon
the criteria listed in PMC Section 25.86.060. If it can be demonstrated that a mini -
storage facility will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, that
it will be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and that it generally supports the other criteria of PMC
Section 25.86.060, a Special Permit may be approved.
The applicant is proposing to develop Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the east
269.53 feet of lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2007-07 as a mini -storage facility. The site plan
indicates there will be ten storage buildings and one office. The storage buildings will
vary in size from approximately 1,100 to 11,750 square feet. The office will be a two-
story building of approximately 4,500 square -feet. In all, a total of around 59,700
square feet of new storage is proposed.
As discussed above the Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission
to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be
maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It
is through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval
conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in
harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the site and properties to
the west is retail commercial; properties to the east and directly south are designated
for medium to high density residential uses and have been developed with apartments.
The apartment development to the east installed a block wall/fence between the site
and the apartment property in 2005 but, no landscaping buffer has been developed on
the commercial property. The north property line borders the I-182 freeway.
The site's C-1 zoning permits a variety of commercial retail, office and service business
to locate on the property. An office complex with square footage comparable to the
proposed mini -storage facility would generate about 560 vehicle trips per day and a
similar sized retail shopping center would generate approximately 2,100 vehicle trips
per day. High impact facilities like a small convenience store/gas station can generate
around 2,200 vehicle trips per day. By comparison the Institute of Traffic Engineers
E
Manual estimates the proposed mini -storage facility will generate about 13 vehicle
trips per day.
Based upon vehicular traffic to the site the proposed mini -storage facility would create
less noise, vibration and commotion than many permitted uses in the C-1 zone.
Additionally the hours of operation for a restaurant or tavern (both permitted uses)
could also have a greater impact on the neighborhood than a mini -storage facility.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual
testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is located at the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard.
2. The site is accessed from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. Currently the site is approximately 3.7 acres in size.
4. Municipal sewer and water are currently located in Chapel Hill Boulevard to the
south.
5. The site currently vacant.
6. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
7. The site is over 1,300 feet from Road 68 causing it to be of marginal benefit for
many commercial enterprises that require high impact site conveniently
adjacent major arterial streets.
8. The site is directly adjacent to an apartment complex on the east.
9. The apartment complex was developed with a block wall/fence along the east
boundary line of the proposed mini -storage site.
10. The site occupies a portion or all of two lots within Binding Site Plan (BSP)
2013-02;
11. BSP 2013-02 contains various buffers along the northern and eastern
boundaries of the proposed site.
12. Uses permitted in the C-1 zone include motels, restaurants, retail stores,
offices, convenience stores and taverns/night clubs.
13. Mini -storage facilities in C-1 zones require special permits.
14. The apartment complex to the east maintains a 20 foot front yard setback.
15. The site is located within the boundaries of the I-182 Overlay District.
16. Estimates from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual 8th Addition indicate
the proposed mini -storage facility could generate about 13 vehicle trips per day.
By comparison the manual estimates a small convenience store/gas station
can generate around 2,200 vehicle trips per day
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission
must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text
of the Comprehensive Plan?
A mini -storage facility can be compatible with several Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Policy LU -1-13 encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of
development within the City. The proposal would replace vacant land with a
well-developed facility with a landscaped street. Policy LU -2-13 requires all
development to be landscaped. Development of the site currently includes
landscaping which support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (LU2-D). The
Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at
major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of
residential neighborhoods.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from Chapel Hill
Boulevard. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible
compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar uses. Impacts to
the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the low volume of traffic
typically generated by mini -storage facilities.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial
facilities at major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions
of residential neighborhoods. The proposed site is zoned C-1 and is located on
Chapel Hill Boulevard near the Road 68/I-182 interchange. Due to the lack of
traffic and noise generated by mini -storage facilities the proposal may be more
in harmony with the neighborhood than permitted uses. Harmony with the
neighborhood will be further achieved through implementation of the I-182
building standards, the addition of buffer landscaping and front yard setbacks.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage
the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the
value thereof?
Structures in the C-1 zone are limited to thirty five (35) feet in height. None of
the proposed structures will approach 35 feet in height with the tallest
structure being twenty five (25) feet in height.
The location of mini -storage facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods
within the City has not resulted in complaints being forwarded to the City.
According to Franklin County assessors records the location of a mini -storage
facility immediately adjacent to the Sunny Meadows subdivision has not
impacted the assessed value of the homes directly north of the mini -storage
facility.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby
properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than
would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district?
The City receives few to no complaints about the operations of mini -storage
facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods Typically, mini -storage facility
generate far less traffic, noise, dust, etc. than some uses permitted in the C-1
zone; such as restaurants, taverns, night-clubs and car -washes.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed
where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the
district?
As a general land use, mini -storage facilities are not inherently dangerous to
public health or safety and do not generate nuisance conditions. This particular
location may be beneficial in that it will buffer occupied land use to the south
from freeway noise of I-182 with a non -occupied commercial land use.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) This Special Permit shall apply to Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the
east 269.53 feet of lot 1 Binding Site Plan 2007-07 (Franklin County Tax Parcel
117420161 and the east 269.53 feet of parcel 117420144).
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) The property must be developed in conformance with the I-182 Overlay District
design standards;
4) All aisle -ways between buildings and all entrance driveways/roads shall be
hard -surfaced;
5) All building walls exposed to an existing city street together with all walls visible
from adjoining properties shall contain architectural features to add interest
and aesthetic qualities to building by the use of masonry coursing, pilasters,
patterning, alternating textures and decorative molding to match the existing
office building. No composite materials, such as typical home siding, are
permitted;
6) All metal roofing shall be colored to complement the exterior walls of the mini -
storage buildings while minimizing glare;
7) The site shall be screened with an architectural block wall/fence on the north
and west property lines;
8) All security lighting shall be shielded and designed to prevent the
encroachment of light onto adjoining properties;
5
9) The applicant must complete a boundary line adjustment to properly identify
the site prior to obtaining a building permit;
10) All easements no longer needed as the result of completing a boundary line
adjustment must be eliminated.
11) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by June 1, 2016.
The proposed project is part of a 1031 tax exchange. As a result the applicant has a
limited amount of time to complete this project. He has therefore asked that the
Planning Commission act on the matter following the hearing on April 16th 2015.
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained
in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit for the location of a mini -storage facility on tax parcel 117 420
161 and the east 269.53 feet of parcel 117 420 144, with conditions as
contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
0
14-4
• POO
•P rV
cj
9
fnF
IF
iA
LU
'6 •
e
OK
�.
evil
LT
1Y-f.J �Yf
I
J
rat!
m
at
LU
LU
'6 •
�rf
evil
LT
1Y-f.J �Yf
LU
'6 •
�rf
evil
LT
I
J
rat!
m
at
J
=
I
it
-�
s Faary lig @ � a
rs
AINTREE DR
m�
Z s N>
b�
0
LL
M00 U)
LL
N U
CtLUJ
0
O
ct i
Ct
N
� U � m
LV a
FM
Q c�
Cl) Q
AINTREE DR
' U woo
me (wtl J J,
'Jll ,`JNIN33NION3 NNIdS
O�SOdOi
oy
a
39VUOiS-INIW OJSVd
NMd 3L5 AtlVNIN1138d
\ ` 11,11 iVi
TO
I I:
I I
I I
I II
I I$q
I I -
I 14
I I
II
Il
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I Id
II
I $I
I "I
I
w
Ile
I
I I J
I(
I
I I:
I I
I I
I II
I I$q
I I -
I 14
I I
II
Il
I
I I
I I
I I
M
144
JA
I
r.
144
JA
I
AOL.
E
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-004 APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Modular Office at Fire Station
81.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Block 117 Pasco Land Company's First Addition.
General Location: Fire Station 81 at 310 N. Oregon Avenue.
Property Size: 2.25 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Oregon Ave. and East Bonneville St.
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. The site
was originally developed with an elevated water tank and now contains a
valve and pumping station and Fire Station 81.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: C-3 - Commercial Development
SOUTH: C-3 - Four-plex and Trucking Firm
EAST: C-3 - Vacant and Commercial Development
WEST: I-1 - Automotive Repair Facilities &v two Houses
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for Industrial Uses. The Plan encourages the setting aside of
adequate lands for public facilities (Goal CF -3) and the maintenance of a
fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient (Goal CF -6).
Policy CF -7-C suggests public facilities should contribute to necessary
concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
In 1999 the City relocated Fire Station # 81 from the downtown area to 310
North Oregon Avenue. The 7,000 square foot station contains three bays for
fire and ambulance vehicles and the main administrative office for the Fire
Department. When Station 81 was constructed in 1999 the City was
approaching a population of 27,000. Today the City is approaching a
population of 68,000. The Fire Department, like other departments within the
City, has grown to meet the demand of an ever increasing population. As a
result there is a need to expand the administrative offices for the Fire
Department. In this case the proposal for the expanded offices involves
relocating and refurbishing the old Metro Task Force Office/Record Storage
building currently located in the secured police parking area behind the City
Hall. To make way for the new Police Station the old Metro Task Force building
will be moved to the north side of the parking lot behind Fire Station 81.
Station 81 was originally granted a Special Permit in early 1999 for the current
site development. The addition of the modular office to the site will require
additional Special Permit review and approval.
The proposed site has been owned by the City and developed with public
facilities for 50 plus years. Prior to the construction of the Fire Station the site
housed an elevated water tank and drainage pond. Public facilities on the site
have had a long history with the neighborhood and have generally operated in
harmony with surrounding development. Much of the current development
along Oregon Avenue occurred after the Fire Station was built in 1999.
The Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission to make a
determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be maintained
in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It is
through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval
conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in
harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the neighborhood is
that of commercial and industrial development. Buildings in the neighborhood
are typically site built permanent facilities. The existing Fire Station is an
attractive site built brick and stucco structure. The water valve/pump house
on the site to the north of the Fire Station is also a masonry type structure.
The proposed modular office will be placed to the rear of the Fire Station on the
north side of the existing parking lot. The proposed office will appear and
function as an accessory structure to the Fire Station. The use regulations of
the zoning code (PMC 25.70.030) require accessory structures to be compatible
and similar to primary structures. This requirement typically applies in
residential zones but has be used as a guide for reviewing Special Permit
applications. To achieve compatibility with the existing Fire Station and pump
house and give the proposed office an appearance of permanency it should be
2
pit set (to avoid the temporary trailer house look) and painted to complement
the Fire Station.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is located at the northwest corner of North Oregon Avenue and
East Bonneville Street.
2. The site has accessed from North Oregon Avenue and East Bonneville
Street.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial uses.
4. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF -6 encourages the maintenance of a fire
protection service that is effective and cost efficient
5. The site is just over 2 acres in size.
6. The site is zoned C-3 (General Business).
7. The site has been owned by the City of Pasco for over 50 years and has
been occupied with various public facilities over the years.
8. The site is currently developed with Fire Station 81.
9. Fire Station 81 was granted a special Permit in 1999.
10. Much of the development along North Oregon Avenue has occurred since
the Fire Station was built in 1999.
11. The Fire Station is site built brick and stucco building.
12. The water system pump house on the Fire Station site is an architectural
masonry block building that complements the Fire Station.
13. The proposed office is a modular building analogous to a mobile home in
appearance.
14. When place on the Fire Station property at 310 North Oregon Avenue the
modular office will become an accessory structure use to provide
administrative support services to the Pasco Fire Department.
15. PMC 25.70.030 can be used as a guide in determining Special Permit
conditions necessary to establish compatibility between the existing on-
site structures and the proposed modular office.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
3
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposal is supported by plan goals or policies that stress the need
to provide land for public services (Goal CF -3), ensure public services are
located to optimize access (Goal CF -7) and that the community maintain
fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient (Goal CF -6).
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Utility demands of the Fire Station office are lower than many of the
infrastructure demands generated by permitted uses in the C-3 zone.
The addition of the proposed office on the site will have minimal impact
on utilities and surrounding streets.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The general area surrounding the Fire Station site is commercial and
industrial in nature, involving trucking and transfer activities, industrial
suppliers and related types of businesses. The Fire Station has been
located on the site for 17 years and has not negatively impacted the
surrounding area. The proposed office likewise if placed properly and
painted to complement the Fire Station will be in harmony with the fire
Station and intended character of the general area.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof
Structures in the C-3 zone are limited to forty-five (45) feet in height. The
proposed office will be less than 14 feet in height and will be setback
from Oregon Avenue over 150 feet. The existing Fire Station and
associated operations have not discouraged development in the area nor
have they diminished the value of surrounding properties. According to
Franklin County Assessors records (2015) surrounding properties have
generally increase in value in the recent past.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
The C-3 zone permits a variety of commercial uses, most of which
generate more traffic, noise, vibrations and dust than will the proposed
office activities. The City receives no complaints about the operations of
the Fire Station.
4
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposed office will not negatively impact surrounding development
and will only support the ongoing operations of the City's Fire
Department. The operations of the current offices in the Fire Station
have not endangered public health and have not become a nuisance to
permitted uses in the area.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel #
112104035;
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) The modular office shall be pit set and installed per manufacturers
specification;
4) The modular office shall be painted to match or complement the existing
Fire Station on the site;
5) If the on-site garbage dumpster enclosure is to be relocated the Fire
Department must coordinate with Basin Disposal on the relocation of
said enclosure;
6) A separate sewer service is required per PMC 13A.52.140;
7) The water meter must be located in the right-of-way following Standard
2-34;
8) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by May 1, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as
adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit for the location of a
modular office for Fire Station 81 on tax parcel #
112104035 with conditions as contained in the April 16,
2015 staff report.
5
(O
�"�P SSR 39
Ct
ON �E 7
J �
V 1 F
y,o
4-4
{
Cl)
a
Vie•
\\ t
4,�
■
Cl)
M
V
1p
�&66R 47AOK14A
1�Cf)
Lpt555
W
FM _--
/ -
-;
--
i- 00
'♦:--� ♦♦♦♦
igo
ce-- ♦go♦
00
♦-
00
--- -
-- •---
.---'"♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦
♦
- 10 ♦
♦
�i---♦
=��♦
M
op
1
E - B 0
Ni N EVI-L
310 N. OREGON AVE, PASCO, WA CITY OF PASCO
CITY OF PASCO PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
509 545-3164 b
W� °oww GENERAL NOTES RcvlsloN "-L�b 1
P
-I
C'
I
ff
it ii
ri
a
.m
MEHEEN
CRAFTED IN THE USP
March 30, 2015
David McDonald
Pasco Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
:1.
Meheen Manufacturing, Inc
325 N. Oregon Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301 USA
P 509.547.7029
F 509.547 0939
meheen.com
Dear David, thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding the letter of
public hearing for the modular office adjacent to Firehouse 81. Unfortunately I am
unable to attend your scheduled hearing on April 16 as we are in Portland Oregon
for the Craft Brewers Conference. I would appreciate this letter being read in the
meeting and copies presented to all members of the planning commission.
As an international business with clients from around the globe attending our
facility every month, I am concerned with the appearance of a modular building
visible from Oregon Ave. and our front entrance. I am also concerned that this
temporary structure may become permanent without meeting the same esthetic and
structural requires imposed on all businesses operating in this area. Further
modular structures will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties
value. For these reasons I strongly oppose a special permit to locate a modular
office in this area.
Sincerely,
David Meheen
President
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-001
HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015
ACTION DATE: 5/21/2015
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Majestia Place
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Peter Strizhak
6159 W. Deschutes Ave., Ste #509
Kennewick, WA 99336
Legal: Lots 12, 18 and 19 Coles Estates with adjoining vacated Road 92
General Location: 6000 Block of Road 90 and at the south end of Kent Lane
Property Size: 10.53 Acres
Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 38 single-family residential lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,570 ft2 to 13,037 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 8,300 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90
3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in in Road 90.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1. Surrounding properties are
zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1 - Single -Family Residences
SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant
EAST: R-3 - Single -Family Residences/Vacant
WEST: R-3 - Multi -Family & Single -Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for residential development. Policy H -1-E encourages the
advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to
maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal
LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the
creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The proposed plat encompasses 10.53 acres of land and contains 38 single-family
residential lots. This property was assigned RT (Residential Transition) when it
was annexed to the City in 1982. In 2014 Council adopted Ordinance #4176
rezoning the subject site to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to allow future single-
family residential development. The rezone was approved without the use of a
concomitant agreement. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
mixed residential development which provides the option to develop single-family
homes. The proposed plat is a functional continuation of the surrounding
Broadmoor Estates subdivisions. The overall density and average lot size between
the proposed subdivision and Broadmoor Place to the north and east are similar.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 38 residential lots; with the lots varying
in size from 7,570 to 13,037 square feet. The average lot size is 8,300 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be
dedicated.
UTILITIES: Currently, municipal sewer and water lines are located both in Road
90 and Road 92. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of
all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during
the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for
construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front
yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500
feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at
street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on residential streets,
and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for
street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights
are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: Streets continuing from surrounding subdivisions will carry the
names from the other subdivisions and streets without names will all be named
prior to final platting.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a
part of infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision
approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If
no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer
must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive
z
the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30%
retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the
City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved.
INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will
protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The
following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 8,300 square feet the proposed
development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots
and usable open spaces. R-1 zoning requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, five-foot
side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater than the height of the
house.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a third of a mile
from Vintage Park. Vintage Park is located directly south of Maya Angelou
Elementary School. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior
to receiving building permits.
A new elementary school (Franklin) opened this year on the north end of Road 52.
Two additional elementary schools are currently under construction with an
opening date of this fall. Delta High School is also under construction on
Broadmoor Boulevard. The developer will be required to pay the current school
impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW
58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to
ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the
request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The
imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are
adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will
be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density
residential development consistent with surrounding residential developments
with the exception of Mediterranean Villas to the west.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes
are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City
standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
ADA ramps at the corners of each intersection will be installed with the
construction of the road improvements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
3
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat
contains 38 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 38 new
homes for Pasco residents.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and
building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to City
standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion
under safe travel above applies to this section also.
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
site is designated for single-family and mixed -residential development. Policies of
the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for
residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies
residential development
• The site is currently zoned R-1.
the site for single-family and mixed-
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision,
when fully developed, will generate approximately 380 vehicle trips per day.
• The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are
collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make
traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when
warranted.
• RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions
have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new
housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees.
The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in
lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat
approval.
4
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops,
schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for
students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division.
These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements
were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the
community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage,
water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The
preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School
District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for
review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for
utility service.
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building
permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW
58.17.110.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional
housing within the City.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative
text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed -
residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted
residential uses within the mixed residential designation. Plan Goal H-2 suggests
the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the
community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of
the established character of viable residential neighborhoods.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council;
5
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form
of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies,
maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate
the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision
regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, park
development and boundary fence construction) are included in approval
conditions.
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are
served.
TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes,
but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and
storm water retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be
completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
All proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the
developer's expense. Sidewalks within the Plat must be located adjacent to the
right-of-way line and off -set from the curb. Lots 23 and 27 may only be
accessed from "Road A".
2. There is an existing water line east of Lots 34, 33, and 32. The developer will
be responsible for relocating and reconnecting the two existing meters
connected to the existing line. The blow -off at the end of the existing water
line may be used instead of the proposed waterline cap south of Lot 32. The
water line must terminate at a blow -off. The proposed irrigation line along
Road 90 must be 8 -inch pipe and is required to connect to the existing
irrigation line at Road 90 and Cheshire Court.
0
3. All lot frontages must be wide enough to accommodate the placement of all
utilities while maintaining the necessary separations between the various
utility service lines.
4. Along Road 90, the existing water and sewer lines will be tapped several times
for utility services for Lots 5 through 11 resulting in the need for several road
surface patches. Road 90 must be over -laid from curb -to -curb for the full
length of the development along Road 90.
5. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160
dealing with water rights acquisition.
6. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
7. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard
fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s).
8. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
9. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement
activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of
dwellings thereon.
10. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
11. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed
in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the
Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to
construction plan approval.
12. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
13. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets
unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
14. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot
or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's
primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of
line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to
PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the
plat".
15. Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD
standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are
typically installed every 300 feet, and collector/ arterial type street lights are
typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is alternating and is
measured along the centerline of the road.
7
16. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with
the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the
agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for
construction plans.
17. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin
protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no
excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in
any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities.
Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection
facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be
responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in
accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement.
18. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
19. The developer/ builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System by
the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of issuance of
building permits for homes.
20. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of
$375 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall
be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard
strips. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the
landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for
each phase that abut said streets.
21. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee"
established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for
homes.
22. The developer shall install common estate type masonry wall/fence 6 feet in
height adjacent the south line of Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 as a part of the
infrastructure improvements for the plat. Said estate wall shall be no closer
than twenty (20) feet from the east property line of Lot 4.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary
plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of
findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to
the City Council for the May 21, 2015 meeting.
E3
anoe� 47;7s a NOIWM M'W dNMVWINWBWOQnty
A
QH �� 33TId HIlS3 f'`dW 19��
$s's ; '
MOd ltlld AtltlwimmUd
13�
cMom
�in5 es aLe `�€te'd�azArd3^' o we
«`« OVOd 3NIl?AMOd
Y
@Ire
idnoo wyHmna yy
w g
B
y a 3�IJ(7 NO1`JNIll3M 'f
w Qd
- � ^� 103aIHo'3H0
L E9E
° � o
Nv` v tl GVOH
M
9
A, a m I •. :, I ,I.
°SSG Ae. IP g��ry,a, _a I •
n� IPI Itw m�� RP Nva IPS Im n„
I RI
yv °an w I
3NVl \_N inrc u3F—
HI1S31VW 3N11 tlus3,ry «
A
AV4NR3'dd tlMJ111INVS
«
Y Q
RP
la
R g
p aY
•
I
m�
I
I
ry
I
/e 16�
kt Inn' p
IG
s-
.ym
a
a
O
�
m
s
a
^' ^- N019NIHSVM O3SVd d0 A1103H1 NI 031tl001 Noisma 5tl
JOOtl9 N91530
��IH�` 3OV�d VIlS3rVW °'=
:aOJ NVld u i n AHVNIA113ad e
6
gG
a .Z.=G n�
z
J o m �9
WbE
wF
w
g
Y
I z
_ _-- m aT6 — —
BFFB. 1 §i_1
bC
W I _ ay.I _11 1
Z
QZi
I I 10J
2 91-i -
X11 alt m na os 1'`
s- I
a
i -
VI
VI1S fVIN1-
0°
I 1 . p
e
-
Vicinity
Map
Item: Preliminary Plat
Applicant: Peter Strizhak
File #: PP2015-001
u
�.�VINCENZO DR
Ijj tLe
DURHAM CT
''
WELLING_ ;TON DR'' afT
�. yr
,
I
!- 0 Q` 7 �`
T
, I I
SANDIFUR
..
t .,
Wnsmnt DR, `
M
•a r
Wnsmnt DR, `
M
CITTYLIUITS
W
r
0
0
4
O
U)
UO
5..4.
rx
O
O
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2015-001) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
ACTION DATE: 4/ 1(a/2015 PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Road 80 Annexation Area.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
Rd 80 Annexation Area 688 acres 437 1,224
2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located in most streets throughout the
proposed annexation area. City gravity sewer mains are found in Road 100
and Court Street bordering the proposed annexation area. There are also
gravity mains in Road 84 north of Argent Road and in Argent for a distance
of 401 feet east of Road 84. These lines connect to a small lift station in the
southwest corner of the Chiawana High property.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned
R -S-20, R -T under the County zoning regulations. About 97 percent of the
area is zoned R -S-20 and 3 percent (23 acres) is zoned RT.
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed
annexation area for low density residential development the exception being
the two school sites, McLoughlin and Livingston, which are identified as
public or quasi -public. There is no corresponding zoning attached to the
public designation so the two school sites are zoned RS -20.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
On January 20, 2015 the City Council approved the formation of an
"Annexation Facts Committee" to review the facts related to the possible
annexation of approximately 688 acres of unincorporated lands located west
of Road 80. The proposed annexation area is part of the unincorporated
West Pasco "donut hole". This area is developed with over 400 dwellings
units, two schools, a large church, a major electrical substation, a seminary
building and a veterinarian clinic. The area also contains or has contained a
number of home based businesses including a paving company, a well
driller and an excavator. Only about 116 acres or seventeen percent of the
1
proposed annexation area remains undeveloped. Of the 116 acres only
about 76 acres are totally unencumbered without dwelling units. The other
40 acres consists of large parcels that have a dwelling and accessory
buildings located somewhere on the parcels. These lots are large enough to
be further divided for additional building lots.
As part of the annexation process to the Planning Commission needs to hold
a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for the
Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning for the proposed
annexation area in the event it may become part of the City.
In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the
Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development
patterns, current County zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the
land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also
needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in
developing a zoning recommendation.
Approximately 97 percent of the proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS -20 and developed in a low-density suburban fashion. Three
percent of the area is zoned RT. The RS -20 regulations are essentially the
same in the City and the County, however, the RT regulations are a little
different. The County code permits commercial stables, riding academies,
farriers, veterinary clinic, nurseries and greenhouses in RT zones and the
City code only permits single-family dwellings.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density
residential development except for the school sites. The school sites are
indicated as public and quasi -public land use areas. There is no specific
zoning district that corresponds to the public and quasi -public designations.
Schools and other public uses are not limited by zoning districts but,
require review through the Special Permit process regardless of zoning
district. The low density areas identify lands that should be zoned for only
low density development. The Comprehensive Plan describes low-density
development as residential development with two to five units per acre.
Zoning districts applicable to the low-density designation include RS -20,
RS -12, RS -1, R-1 and R -1-A. Zoning must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which limits the range of districts to the ones
previously listed. No commercial of industrial zoning can be considered.
Most of the residential lots within the annexation area meet or exceed the lot
size requirements for RS -20 zoning. There are only a few lots (20) located
directly west of Livingston Elementary School that are less than 20,000
square feet in size. Due to the existing development patterns and the lack of
sewer service it appears RS -20 zoning would be the most appropriate
designation. This will enable residential development to occur on all lands
in the annexation area, including the currently zoned RT areas, at the same
densities as generally existing in the annexation area today.
VA
The veterinarian clinic at 3012 Road 92 is currently zoned RT in the County
would become a non -conforming use under the City's RS -20 or RT zones.
As a non -conforming use the clinic can continue to be operated as it does
today. The non -conforming status does not expire if the clinic is sold to
another veterinarian.
A few individuals on the Annexation Facts Committee are concerned that
the recommended RS -20 zoning may lead to higher density residential
zoning once their neighborhood is annexed. For a majority (572 acres of the
688) of the annexation area zoning will not alter the development patterns or
increase the density. The 116 acres of the annexation area that could be
developed is currently constrained by the lack of sewer service and will be
for a number of years. Without sewer service residential lots will not be
developed with less than about 22,000 square feet for many years. Those
concerned about residential densities have asked that the RS -20 zoning
designation by applied to the annexation area for a period of 20 years
without the possibility of having it changed to another low-density zoning
district. In responding to the request the City Attorney has advised the 20
year period is excessive and difficult to justify. His recommendation is for a
more defensible 5 year period.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained
in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question.
Upon annexation the area will need to be zoned.
• Much of the annexation area is now developed.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The
justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not
determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For
the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property
needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
3
Zoning the proposed annexation area to generally reflect the current
County zoning will maintain the current nature and value of the
neighborhood and surrounding areas. Past annexation rezones have not
negatively altered the value of adjoining properties in the City or the
County
4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the
area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be
zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners
adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the annexation area for low-
density residential development. The Growth Management Act requires
zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RS -20 is one of
the listed residential zoning districts that is consistent with the low-
density residential land use designation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and
evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by August 2015.
4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density
residential uses.
5) The Comprehensive Plan indicates RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 R-1 and R -1-A
zoning district are applicable to the low-density land use designation
6) The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
7) The annexation area lacks sanitary sewer service and as a result most of the
residential lots within the area are a half acre or larger.
8) Approximately 97 percent of the proposed annexation area is zoned R -S-20
9) RS -20 zoning is virtually the same in the City and County.
12
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Zoning the area RS -20 to reflect the land use designations in the
Comprehensive Plan and established development patterns will cause the
proposal to be in accord with the Plan.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Retaining low density zoning on those properties developed with low density
single-family homes will preserve the suburban nature of the neighborhood
and will have no material impact on surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the
annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without
zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or
maintained.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
Zoning the neighborhood consistent with the established development
patterns within the neighborhood will mitigate the impacts of the property not
being zoned upon annexation. If the area was zoned to reflect the land use
designations of the Comprehensive Plan and established densities and
development patterns no additional conditions are needed.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
5
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 80
Annexation Area to RS -20, as indicated on the zoning map
identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the October 18, 2012 staff
report with the provision the RS -20 classification shall remain in
effect for a minimum of 5 years.
9
NO
oz-sb
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2015-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015 PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Sharma Annexation Area.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
Sharma Annexation Area 144 acres 2 5
2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located at the corner of Burns Road and
Broadmoor Boulevard. A water line is also located in Burns Road along the
southern boundary of the proposed annexation area.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned
AP 20 under the County zoning regulations. Most of the site in being
farmed.
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed
annexation area for low density residential development. Surrounding
properties are also designated for low density residential development.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
On November 11, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution 3547
accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for a 157
acre area located at the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and
Burns Road. Following acceptance of the Notice of Intent and prior to
Council action on an annexation petition, the Planning Commission is to
hold a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for the
Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning for the proposed
annexation area in the event it may become part of the City.
In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the
Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development
patterns, current County zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the
land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also
1
needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in
developing a zoning recommendation.
The annexation area contains a farm and two dwellings. The largest parcel
is 119 acres and is being farmed. The other two parcels are vacant with the
exception of a mobile home and an abandoned house.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density
residential development. The Comprehensive Plan describes low-density
development as residential development with two to five units per acre.
Zoning districts applicable to the low-density designation include RS -20,
RS -12, RS -1, R-1 and R -1-A. Zoning must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which limits the range of districts to the ones
previously listed. No commercial or industrial zoning can be considered for
the annexation area.
There are no subdivisions within the annexation area to provide an
established development pattern from which to consider zoning. The
Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the Southeast of the annexation area is
the closets subdivision from which to draw a comparison. Broadmoor
Estates was zoned R-1 with conditions establishing an average lot size of
around 9,500 square feet. The RS -1 zoning district would most closely meet
the established development configuration of Broadmoor Estates. RS -1
zoning has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet. Desert
Plateau and Casa del Sol are examples of two subdivisions that were
developed with RS -1 zoning.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained
in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question.
Upon annexation the area will need to be zoned.
• Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended
past the annexation site.
• A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being
installed north in Dent Road.
• Properties along Dent Road are being platted and developed with
single-family dwellings.
• The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a
major sewer trunk line in Burns Road.
►J
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The
justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not
determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For
the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property
needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation area to generally reflect the current
zoning in the closest subdivision to the east will maintain the current
nature and value of Broadmoor Estates. RS -1 zoning is support by the
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with zoning that is permitted on
surrounding properties Past annexation rezones have not negatively
altered the value of adjoining properties in the City or the County
4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the
area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be
zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners
adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the annexation area for low-
density residential development. The Growth Management Act requires
zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RS -1 is one of the
listed residential zoning districts that is consistent with the low-density
residential land use designation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and
evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by August 2015.
4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density
residential uses.
3
5) The Comprehensive Plan indicates RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 R-1 and R -1-A
zoning district are applicable to the low-density land use designation
6) The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
7) Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended past the
annexation site.
8) A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being installed
north in Dent Road.
9) The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a major
sewer trunk line in Burns Road.
10)RS-1 zoning will permit development with lots sizes similar to those in the
Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the southeast of the annexation site.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Zoning the area RS -1 to reflect the land use designations in the
Comprehensive Plan and established development patterns of the nearest
subdivision will cause the proposal to be in accord with the Plan.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Zoning the area RS -1 will support the land use designations of the
Comprehensive Plan for the annexation site and surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the
annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without
zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or
maintained.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
Zoning the site RS -1 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and creates no
adverse impacts that need mitigating.
0
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 80
Annexation Area to RS -1, as indicated on the zoning map identified
as Exhibit # 1 attached to the October 18, 2012 staff report.
5
Zoning Item: Sharma Annexation ,,�
Map Applicant: City oiFl�asCo
File #: ZD 2015-002
AP -20 2S-1
RT
Residential Transition
C-1
Retail Business
AP -2®
(Agricultural Production)
County
CITY LIMITS
milli
— of i■■■■■ �� �� ■■■■■
cR-3
(Medium -Deni Reside:
C-1
QlRetail Bus
ndifur
IC -1
CR
I-182
Exhiblet "'i11: I x.111 t. Annexation
L`. �.ttIc�
#1 Applicant- City of Pasco
- . 2015-002
CITY LIMITS
mm ii i■
� 1111■���� �� i. ■I 1m
NINE mm
'": W-0 ON mmmmmon mm MEESE
I-182
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 30, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-001)
Title 9 (Peace, Safety & Morals) of the Pasco Municipal Code regulates aircraft
landing within the city. Currently, it is a violation for aircraft to land anywhere
within the City besides the airport and at hospital locations authorized by
special permit. The intent of the proposed code amendment is to provide code
authority for aircraft landing in cases of emergency. Specific language
amending Title 9 is proposed as follows:
9.78.020 FACILITATING UNLAWFUL LANDINGS
UNLAWFUL. Except in case of an emergency, it shall
further be a violation of this chapter for the owner,
lessee, manager, or any other person in charge of a
public or private place to knowingly permit, encourage
or cause, whether by commission or omission, any
person to land a helicopter, airplane or ultralight aircraft
in the City of Pasco except at an airport or heliport or
any other landing or maneuvering space for aircraft
permitted by special permit obtained under the
provisions of Chapter 22..8 25.86 of the Pasco
Municipal Code.
Staff requests the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendment and
address any foreseeable concerns that may arise as a result of approval. Staff
intends to bring this item back to the Planning Commission in May to conduct
the public hearing.
(MF# CA 2015-001) Page 1 of 1
ANCHOR
I,PEA. c�V
MEMORANDUM
8033 W. Grandridge Avenue, Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336
Phone 509.491.3151
www.anchorqea.com
To: Rick White and Jeff Adams, City of Pasco Date: March 2, 2015
From: Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA Project: 131050
cc: Angela San Felippo, Ecology and Ferdouse
Oneza, Oneza & Associates
Re: Draft SMP Revisions per City Staff and Planning Commission Review
Anchor QEA has identified the following updates to the SMP based on the February 19
Planning Commission meeting and the subsequent February 24 meeting with City staff.
1. Move definitions currently located in the draft Pasco Municipal Code (PMC)
29.01.860 to the beginning of Article I of the SMP regulations, consistent with format
for other city code sections.
2. Change "Shoreline Conditional Use Permit" to "Special Use Permit" throughout the
document, including PMC 20.01.750. "Conditional uses" as a term will continue to be
used in the draft SMP code, when "permit" does not follow.
3. Color code the Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix (Table 29.01.200(2)), with
green for A (allowed), yellow for C (conditional use) and red for X (prohibited).
Also add an "X" in industrial uses section, water-related/water enjoyment row under
the shoreline residential column.
4. Replace the Development Standards Matrix (Table 29.01.210(2)) with the following,
updated table, noting that after further discussion with staff about relying on
"conditional use" provisions versus trying to get more specific in the standards table,
we revised the matrix with more specific standards, as reflected in the proposed
updates. The trail width modification will also be updated in other sections of the
SMP:
\\Epsilon2\PIa g\12.0 TRAKITPRO)ECIS\Plays\PLAN 2013-001 Shoreline Manu Program\Task 6 Raft Shmelmv M.w P=ogamWQSMP Revisions Memo 2015-02-02 dace
Rick White and Jeff Adams
March 2, 2015
Table 29.01.210 (2)
Shoreline Development Standards Matrix for City of Pasco
Notes:
1. According to 29.01.210 (1)(c)
32. Accomoanied by stormwater management measures/facilities, wetland protections and other protections as
as ola
23. Measured from the OHWM or top of bank as applicable.
4. Except where roadway, paved trail, or parking area or other development that has eliminated or constrained
ecological functions encroaches and then to the waterward edge of the facility maintenance area, as applicable
NA = not applicable
5. Update the values, as applicable in Table 29.01.520 (8)(a): Wetland Buffer
Requirements consistent with Ecology January 2015 guidance
6. In Section 29.01.780, Duration of Permits, remove highlighted note and leave section
as is. City concurs with the proposed timing.
7. Environment designation changes: 1) parallel designation of Natural and Urban
Conservancy in Subreach Id, 2) split Subreach 5d in half, with west half as parallel
Recreation and Public Flood Protection, and east half as parallel High Intensity —
Mixed Use and Public Flood Protection designations, 3) change Subreach 6a to High
Intensity — Mixed Use; and 4) in Subreach 6c from western edge to start of heavy
C
o
v
w
m
d
c
O
C
o
C
N
d
N
W E
d
Y
U
41
'i+
Y
✓ •y
C
A•
Cr
m
a
u
r
c
Use/Modification
¢
z
Building heights
15
3-5NJA
35
35
35
345
No
35
limt
Building line setback in feet
NA
10-15
Impervious surface cover_-
4A10
NA
5%
20%
20%
50%
100%
4050%
—
maximum (%)4
%
Conserve
Riparian buffer width
in feet2.3' °
NA
€entire
-
75°
50"
50"
59°
50
—
50°
area
420 feet or as required by Americans with Disabilities
Trail width in feet
NA
NA
Act regulations. Trails on private properties and not
open for public use shall be up to 5 -feet -wide.
Notes:
1. According to 29.01.210 (1)(c)
32. Accomoanied by stormwater management measures/facilities, wetland protections and other protections as
as ola
23. Measured from the OHWM or top of bank as applicable.
4. Except where roadway, paved trail, or parking area or other development that has eliminated or constrained
ecological functions encroaches and then to the waterward edge of the facility maintenance area, as applicable
NA = not applicable
5. Update the values, as applicable in Table 29.01.520 (8)(a): Wetland Buffer
Requirements consistent with Ecology January 2015 guidance
6. In Section 29.01.780, Duration of Permits, remove highlighted note and leave section
as is. City concurs with the proposed timing.
7. Environment designation changes: 1) parallel designation of Natural and Urban
Conservancy in Subreach Id, 2) split Subreach 5d in half, with west half as parallel
Recreation and Public Flood Protection, and east half as parallel High Intensity —
Mixed Use and Public Flood Protection designations, 3) change Subreach 6a to High
Intensity — Mixed Use; and 4) in Subreach 6c from western edge to start of heavy
Rick White and Jeff Adams
March 2, 2015
Page 3
industrial area just east of Osprey Pointe, also make this area High Intensity — Mixed
Use. Add High -Intensity — Mixed Use to legend.
8. Update per Ecology comments, as applicable (to be provided as separate document).